You have focused on the Low end drums and the rhythm and also the vocal where you can really notice the difference in stereo fidelity and clarity brought about by you i assume.Īs you know Brian, i am mastering 3 versions of a song at the moment and I’m interested to know, in your final master what is an acceptable level of clipping? In your mastering its clear that there has been some mindful focus on key elements on the tracks. You cannot get the human touch from an algorithm on a computer.(yet) It is clear, and i don’t want to blow your trumpet Brian, but the trumpets of all sound engineers and producers. Which i play in a set at about 14 mins 30 if you wish to listen to the application of overkill to a track. ONE Track which may of been mastered on MAXX OVERKILL setting is Twinkle – Tu as Perdu. It does brighten up the track as a WHOLE, it still remains flat sounding and lacks some stereo fidelity, which less noticeable on headphones.(Which i use a lot)Īs for the 11 max intensity, I don’t think i would need that for a whole track i can kill it myself! But it may be a great application for mastering individual tracks within a track. And for the speed and the fact you can keep doing it over and over for very little cost is fantastic. For the quick brightening up of a track its great. I am quite impressed by the capabilities of Landr. This is the fist time i listened to these comparisons in my studio.
It’s going to be up to mastering engineers to position their services as something people *need* that they can’t get with a button push. This is just the first shot in a looooong battle. (And Sonny Moore will still drive his tracks too hard)
#LANDR ALTERNATIVE HOW TO#
Gosh, why send your tracks out for mastering or learn how to balance your levels and dynamic range when you can buy a $249 iZotope OzoneAutoFix or whatever? More than likely, though, this sort of stuff will trickle down into the tools that project studios use.
#LANDR ALTERNATIVE SOFTWARE#
It’s not a huge leap to say that some sort of intelligent software algorithm will be able to find common trouble spots like sibilance or frequency balance problems.Īnd with R128 and similar loudness standards being implemented more adequately across platforms, it’s going to get easier for systems to analyze integrated loudness and adjust accordingly. Right now, this is going to be the kind of service used by “some kid who wants to make a demo.” But I say in about 10 years, these algorithms will be getting a lot smarter. Have you tried LANDR? What did you think? Let’s talk about it in the comments.Īlthough I *am* a bit surprised that it wasn’t a complete trainwreck.
We are partners in releasing the best records possible, which often extends into areas beyond mixing, like promotional advice and track sequencing. Your mastering engineer can be, as Chris from London Exchange puts it, The Fifth Beatle. That applies to everything from excessive sub bass to thin guitar tone to ultrasonic synth spikes to questionable vocal intonation. Maybe it’s coincidence, but my clients’ mixes tend to get better with every release. When I hear a problem best addressed in the mix, I ask the client for changes. Most importantly, it can’t tell you to go back and fix your mix! It doesn’t even know what genre your track is in. It can’t tell if the excess energy at 200 Hz is the characteristic warmth of a rich fretless bass, or vocal mud that needs to be cut. It can’t know whether occasional high frequency bursts are vocal sibilants that demand de-essing, or cymbal crashes.
#LANDR ALTERNATIVE PROFESSIONAL#
The algorithm will get better over time, but it can never replace a professional mastering engineer, because it lacks musical understanding. To be fair, LANDR is an incredibly ambitious project! It’s amazing that it performs as well as it does. There are huge tonal and volume differences between masters at the same intensity level, relegating LANDR to one-off singles. Speaking of which, try playing the three LANDR high intensity samples one after the other. Would they sit together nicely on the same album? No way! Regardless, LANDR has no way of knowing that it’s a ballad, and therefore doesn’t require the same RMS level as a club track on the same release. This track might have sounded better at the default medium intensity, but I ran out of credits. The “quiet” part sounds just as loud, if not louder, than the “loud” part! In this case, I find the LANDR version to be ridiculously bright, edgy, and essentially unlistenable.Īlso note the break at 0:13 where it’s supposed to drop off in volume and build back up. This cover was pulled off an old DAT recording for a rarities and remixes release.
0 kommentar(er)
